asked the Minister for Education if the National Museum has done any work for a private individual (details supplied); the nature of the work; the date on which the museum was asked to carry out such work; the cost to public funds; if any part of the cost to public funds was reimbursed by the individual concerned and, if so, the date on which the payment was requested and the date on which payment was made; and if it is the normal practice for the museum to carry out such services for private individuals.

The question would appear to refer to an Ogham stone in the collection of a museum other than the National Museum of which the National Museum, on request, made a mould and two copies, one to be placed in the original location of the stone and the other copy for its own archives.

The making of the copy of the stone in question 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.

It is normal practice for the National Museum to make copies of the objects for private individuals who present objects to the museum. The cost involved on this occasion was insignificant and, in the circumstances, the question of direct reimbursement to public funds did not arise.

Is it not the case that the original site of the stone in question is on the private property of the person who requested the cast to be made?

That is correct.

Is it regarded as normal by the Minister and his Department that an individual should be allowed to use the public services of the National Museum for his private pleasure, at his whim and his regard, especially if such an individual holds a public position in this State?

That is not correct. If the Deputy or anybody else has a similar proposition the National Museum would welcome it when, resulting from the operation in question, the fund of artifacts had been added to. The Deputy is wrong in attaching to this matter anything that is not available to any citizen.

In his reply the Minister made specific reference to the fact that it is common practice for the museum to make copies of objects for individuals who own them. Would he not agree that in this case the individual concerned did not even own the object but simply wanted a copy of it from a museum which he did not own or control for putting on his private property for his own private enjoyment in the south-western corner of this country?

I am not a legalist and, accordingly, cannot enter into the question of ownership in the matter of the stone. The fact is that the stone in question was located in this specific area, was in another museum, and on the request that a copy of it should be made available for the original location and that the museum should simultaneously have a copy of it for its archives, that proposition was welcomed and would be welcomed in similar circumstances.

Is the Minister saying on a matter of principle that anybody who owns a site on which a national monument of this kind once stood is now entitled to ask the National Museum to make a cast of it so that he can put it on his own land again?

If the Deputy pondered on the ridiculousness of his statement he would not expect me to answer it.