asked the Minister for Education the precise areas of Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Wexford already surveyed as part of the joint study on urban archaeology; the nature of the information sought; the sources from which the information was sought; and the recommendations, if any, made by those carrying out the survey.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Urban Archaeology Study.
14.
The following areas in Dublin, Cork, Limerick and Wexford have been surveyed:
Dublin: High Street, Christchurch Place, Wood Quay, Fishamble Street, Dublin Castle.
Cork: Sullivan's Quay and South Main Street.
Limerick: Site of Dominican Priory.
Wexford: Oyster Lane and Abbey Street.
The group engaged on the study were asked to indicate sites of major significance and to indicate the procedures to be adopted in relation to these sites. I have not asked the members of the group for details of the sources of information to which they referred. The group has not yet made recommendations.
Is it not the case that practically all of the areas the Minister has mentioned are areas in which actual archaeological excavation is taking place anyway and that to carry out a survey in such an area is not doing anything extra? Will the Minister indicate if, and when, he expects the survey of the entire area of these large urban conurbations will be carried out on a general basis independent of any excavations that may take place from time to time and independent of the survey?
I am glad I have convinced the Deputy of the futility of carrying out surveys in areas already excavated, a point he was reluctant to accept earlier. I would remind him again that unfortunately at the moment we have not the staff available to do a survey of the kind he envisages. I hope that when I give muscle to the group he endeavoured to establish some of the results he would like to see will be achieved.
Does the Minister agree that since this joint study was established in March 1977, for the vast bulk of which time he was responsible for the execution of the duties of the National Museum, nothing has happened with regard to this survey?
I do not accept that.
Would not the Minister agree that apart from the work done in the Wood Quay-High Street area and the very small amount of work done at Sullivan's Quay and South Main Street, Cork, this constitutes only a tiny fraction of the amount of work required to be done? It would not amount to more than 1 per cent or 2 per cent. Will the Minister agree to increase substantially the number of staff involved in this kind of work and give them the necessary resources to complete it?
I am happy to agree with what the Deputy has said. I do not like referring back to this great survey. Last week I indicated to the House that the group established by Deputy Bruton consisted of two part-time officers. One cannot expect marvellous results from two part-time officers.
It is something like the national development consortium.
I have been applying myself to establishing a group that will give us the results wished for by Deputy Bruton but for which he did not provide.
In fairness it must be said that the Minister had two years to do something about the matter.
As far as I am concerned the qualified personnel are not there. We are arranging to get them as soon as possible.
What was done was a Government decision. The terms of reference of this body were agreed in March 1977 by the Government and subsequently it was a matter for the relevant Departments to provide staff on a full-time or a part-time basis. The fact that full-time staff were not provided was the responsibility of the Government who were in power from March 1977 onwards and for the major part of that time Fianna Fáil were in power.
The Deputy was long enough in Government to know that the expression of a wish by him did not guarantee that the Department of Finance would provide the resources.
It was a Government decision. It went to the Cabinet table.
Will the Minister state how many staff are involved?
I indicated to the House last week that there are three part-time officials—a representative of the OPW, a representative of my Department and a representative of the Department of the Environment. As I said last week, I hope that in a short time the group will have resources and a respectability in the matter of personnel and whole-time officers that will allow it to do some work.
Nothing would have happened if it had not been for these parliamentary questions. The Minister sat on the matter for two years.
Nothing happened as a result of what the Deputy did.
Does the Minister consider it just to try to lay blame on somebody for having two part-time officers while over a period of two years he has increased that number by one extra person? I do not understand the rationale behind the Minister's approach.
I am referring to facts. I am not endeavouring to present justice or injustice—just facts.
That was the impression given by the Minister.
I am not concerned about wrong impressions.
When in doubt blame somebody else.
I am not blaming anyone.
Question No. 15 has been postponed.
The Minister was not in the House when I asked that the question be postponed. I thought the Minister for Education was going to answer the question and I asked that it be postponed until the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Economic Planning and Development was present.
Does the Deputy wish to have the reply now?
Yes, if that is in order.
The Chair has no objection.