asked the Minister for Finance the amount of State money granted to the Rosc Exhibition; the amount of money granted to the exhibition with ministerial approval by Bord Fáilte Éireann, Aer Lingus, RTE, An Chomhairle Ealaíon and CIE; the cost of the removal of the stones from their sites to Dublin; the cost of their proposed return to the original sites; the cost of dismantling and re-erection; the staff employed at the exhibition; and the total cost to the State and to State agencies of the exhibition.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Rosc Exhibition.
30.
My approval was not sought, nor was it necessary, for any financial aid that may be granted to the Committee in charge of the Rosc Exhibition by any of the bodies named in the Question.
Some services are being rendered by the normal staff of the National Museum in connection with the section of the Rosc Exhibition that is being held in the Museum. Apart from these services, I am not aware that grants are being paid by any Government Department to the Rosc Committee.
The full cost of dismantling the carved stones, transporting them to Dublin and back and re-erecting them is being borne by the Rosc Committee, who have lodged the sum of £500 in advance to cover the expenses of the Commissioners of Public Works. This sum will be adjusted when the final figures of cost are available.
I have no information about the staff employed at the exhibition.
Has the Minister no information as to the contributions made by Bord Fáilte, Aer Lingus, CIE, RTE, et cetera, seeing that it was money voted by this House to them for their own administrative purposes? Does he not consider the least he might do is to find out how much money these public bodies or semi-State companies gave towards this exhibition?
My function here is to deal with matters for which I have responsibility. My sanction was not necessary, nor was it sought, in regard to any of the bodies the Deputy mentions in his question.
31.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will make a statement in regard to the resignation of a member of the National Monuments Advisory Council who stated that he had resigned because the Minister had overridden the Council's advice that five ancient monuments should not be removed from their sites and taken to the Rosc Exhibition in Dublin; and if the member who resigned had been on the Council since 1955.
I have received a letter of resignation from a member of the National Monuments Advisory Council. The letter gave no reason for the resignation. The writer of the letter had been a member of the council since March, 1955. I have no other statement to make regarding this matter.
Might I ask the Minister if it is a fact that the National Monuments Advisory Council was set up for the purpose of advising the Minister? Might I ask him now what purpose does the council serve when it tenders advice which the Minister refuses to consider and refuses to act on?
(Cavan): Is there any truth in the rumour that the Minister is to become chairman of the council, just like the Minister for Agriculture became chairman of the agricultural advisory body?
Advising in this matter is only one isolated function of this council. Its advice is accepted on many other matters.
Is it not a fact that the Minister was advised against the removal of these ancient monuments from their original sites to Dublin? Is that not so—including Clonmacnois?
One takes advice from many quarters but the ultimate decision is the Minister's.
Is the Minister not prepared to be guided by the expert advice of people on this Council, who have been appointed to this Council simply because they are experts?
One of the jobs of a Minister from day to day is to receive advice, very often conflicting advice, from different sources and to make up his own mind as to which is the correct course of action.
And use very intemperate words, according to today's report?
(Cavan): Is the Minister going to become chairman?
(Interruptions.)
Order.