asked the Minister for Education the original exact location of the site of the Ogham stone of which a cast was made for the private individual mentioned in Question No. 12 of 22 March 1979.
24.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - National Museum.
23.
asked the Minister for Education if it is normal practice for the National Museum to make copies of objects for and at the request of private individuals who have not presented such objects to the Museum.
25.
asked the Minister for Education, in relation to the principle enunciated by him in response to Question No. 12 of 22 March 1979, that the question of direct reimbursement to public funds for work done by National Museum staff for a private individual does not arise where the cost is negligible, the level of cost in pounds at which he considers reimbursement for such services by private individuals should properly be made.
26.
asked the Minister for Education the number of members of the staff of the National Museum who were involved at any stage in the arrangements for the casting of replicas of the Ogham stone referred to in Question No. 12 of 22 March 1979; the grades of staff involved; and the salary payable to each such grade.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 23, 24, 25 and 26 together.
The original location of the site in question was Eaglais Bhréanainn, Inis Mhicileáin, Dún Caoin, Co. Chiarraí. I informed the Deputy on 22 March 1979—Question No. 38—that the making of the copy of this stone was in accordance with the general policy of the National Museum that copies of stones should, where possible, be placed where the originals had stood. I further informed him that if he himself, or anybody else, had a similar proposition the National Museum would welcome it. I have nothing further to add to my statement in this regard.
In the matter of cost I do not propose to enter into hypothetical cases. The fact is that in this instance the case was insignificant and the question of reimbursement did not arise. The number of staff involved was one technical assistant whose salary scale is £42.62 to £61.40 per week.
Is the Minister aware that the original location of the stone to which he has referred is the private property of the Minister for Health and Social Welfare?
I would be so aware.
Can the Minister tell us why the National Museum has performed, at some expense, a particular task for the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, at his request, which apparently it is not in a position to perform for other private individuals?
The National Museum would be in no position to exclude any Minister from the facilities they give to any citizen of this country and I would be surprised if the Deputy would so request.
Can the Minister state why an ordinary member of the public who goes into the National Museum pays 35p for a coloured slide but when a Minister of State goes in he can have work done—costing an amount we are not told—free for him apparently because he is a Minister of State?
As a socialist I do not accept that there are any ordinary members of the public; all of the public are the same to me, all citizens are the same. If any citizen wants a service rendered in respect of what the Deputy referred to in his question he or she can have it and is welcome to it.
If I get the drift of the Minister's answer correctly is he saying that any private citizen on whose land a national monument once stood, such as an Ogham stone, is entitled now, by virtue of the action of the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, to get from the National Museum a copy of that monument, subject to reasonable expense, and to replace it on the site on which it stood originally?
If the nature of the request is identical or close to that to which the Deputy's question refers not alone will the person get the service but the museum will welcome such an approach from any citizen.
Could we have some indication from the Minister of the cost limits that might be involved in such a service? The Minister has steadfastly refused to give any indication of the costs involved at all except to say that they are minimal. Surely citizens who are now to be informed of the availability of this service, thanks to the initiative of the Minister for Health and Social Welfare, are entitled to know to what limits in costs they are entitled to ask the museum to go?
The time factor here refers to what would approximate to a day in the working week of an officer who is being paid at a rate between £42 to £61 per week. The Deputy will be able to calculate that the cost involved here was somewhere around £14 or £15.
The Minister could have given that information weeks ago.
I credit the Deputy with certain intelligence and a certain ability to make calculations of his own. I think there are times when he would deny me the right to do that thinking for him. He should be consistent about it.
Under the policy of the National Museum they should have sent the Minister a bill for it. That would have solved the problem a long time ago, too.
27.
asked the Minister for Education the terms on which the Cook collection was given to the National Museum; if he is aware of the objections of the Board of Trinity College, Dublin to the sending abroad of this collection; and when this collection will be returned to Ireland.
Items collected during the voyages of Captain Cook were included in material transferred to the National Museum by Trinity College, Dublin in the last century. Some of the items were given to the National Museum without condition. Others were given subject to the conditions that Trinity College could at any time reclaim them and that they would not be removed from the National Museum without the consent of the Board of Trinity College. Inadvertently four of the objects which were subject to these conditions were loaned by the National Museum to the Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii without the consent of Trinity College. The objects were returned to the National Museum on 13 February 1979.
Can the Minister indicate if and when the Cook collection will be returned to Ireland?
I would ask the Deputy to be more specific. Strictly speaking there is no collection which can be described precisely as the Cook collection. If the Deputy would indicate to me specific items he has in mind I will get precise information for him.
From the group of objects referred to in the reply to this question; is it intended to return this group of objects to Ireland?
I have indicated that the four items in question have already been returned.
No, the other items.
What other items?
In the group that has been loaned.
Perhaps I may help the Deputy by indicating to him— inadvertently four of the objects subject to these conditions were loaned by the National Museum to the Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, without the consent of Trinity College. The objects were returned to the National Museum on 13 February 1979.
I will give the Deputy some information I have here in respect of what is described as the Cook collection. There is no such entity as the Cook collection. Some items removed from their native territories were given at various dates and by various donors to Trinity College. These collections, together with other specific material, not associated with Cook, were transferred to the National Museum on three dates, 1882, 1885 and 1894. Some were given outright, some were deposited and some, especially the 1894 group, were given on loan. The 1882 group of objects included Peruvian and Mexican pottery, Chinese musical instruments, some ethnographical objects and a collection of insects. The material was presented to the National Museum apparently without condition. If the Deputy would indicate to me what of that collection is still causing him concern I will be happy to get that information for him.
Is the Minister satisfied that the board of Trinity College, Dublin are satisfied?
I am, and I would say, in deference to Trinity College, they were right to indicate that the items should not have been removed without their assent, without consultation with them. I have written to them expressing my regret that these requirements were not met, indicating that I have taken steps to ensure it will not recur.